Cannabis Compounds Found that Prevent Covid-19 Infection

Compounds in cannabis can prevent infection from the virus that causes Covid-19 by blocking its entry into cells, according to a study published this week by researchers affiliated with Oregon State University. A report on the research, “Cannabinoids Block Cellular Entry of SARS-CoV-2 and the Emerging Variants,” was published online on Monday by the Journal of Natural Products.

The researchers found that two cannabinoid acids commonly found in hemp varietals of cannabis, cannabigerolic acid, or CBGA, and cannabidiolic acid, also known as CBDA, can bind to the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19. By binding to the spike protein, the compounds can prevent the virus from entering cells and causing infection, potentially offering new avenues to prevent and treat the disease…

The study was led by Richard van Breemen, a researcher with Oregon State’s Global Hemp Innovation Center in the College of Pharmacy and Linus Pauling Institute, in collaboration with scientists at the Oregon Health & Science University. Van Breeman said that the cannabinoids studied are common and readily available.

“These cannabinoid acids are abundant in hemp and in many hemp extracts,” van Breemen said, as quoted by local media. “They are not controlled substances like THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, and have a good safety profile in humans.”

Way cool. Of course, researchers have continued their research seeking less expensive, easy means of treating the COVID infections…especially with the much discussed potential for the pandemic to become endemic like flu. Another avenue of defense in addition to vaccination.

Thanks, UrsaRodinia and others

19 thoughts on “Cannabis Compounds Found that Prevent Covid-19 Infection

  1. Mark says:

    Unless Trump mentions it, when it will become dangerous and called ‘stoner paste’ by the attention starved corporate media..

    Note that the paper is a pre-print has not been peer reviewed.

    • eideard says:

      Most right-wingers in the US – including the many stoners – will never acknowledge weed as harmless. The religious nutters in charge would croak. “Corporate media” ain’t needed to guide their tiny minds and biblical guidance. They’ve spent too many years declaring it a sin.

    • eideard says:

      Pre-print often happens on the way to peer review to establish precedence. And – at this point in time – Trump is about the only commenting source that HASN’T YET mentioned these early days findings. Mushrooming throughout US media. Topic will be on a significant number of Sunday talk shows, no doubt.

      • Mark says:

        The article itself says its a pre-print. A pre-print will normally appear in a journal, as linked above, when peer reviewed.

        IMHO the idea that weed is harmless is not entirely true. Overuse can be harmful in many ways, as is overuse of just about anything.

        Many left wingers and centrists will never acknowledge weed as harmless either. Its only natural after listening decades of moral panic nonsense on the subject and deciding, not unreasonably, that the nonsense must be true.

        We are seeing the same thing with covid where normal people being force fed moral panic nonsense in order to justify the state forcing an experimental ‘vaccine’ upon the public, closing schools despite abundant evidence that this is far more harmful to children than the covids, and laughably enforcing with censorship the idea the idea that the only truth about covid comes from official sources.

        I cant decide whether Orwell would be turning in his grave or laughing his bony arse off at the the state of play.

        • eideard says:

          So, anything “institutional”, regardless of track record, you must deny or disregard…especially if contradicting your preferred analysis. Everyone in journalism or medicine in the US knows that “experimental” is a classification utilized to expedite availability and production. A legalism.

          “Abundant evidence” again is meaningless when the science required isn’t even consulted. Fear of large successful bodies – whether research or social – simply because they are large and successful is absurd, irrational. I have no idea why you choose to do so. “Orwellian” interpretation wouldn’t even exist except for the monomania of a paranoid writer who treated his friends and family like crap compared to his politics. Nothing new about fear of “new” – especially technology which requires more money to access than the average individual can afford…until it reaches a level of mass production. Cripes! I first ran into this 50 years ago, writing for a Brit in the Deep South who hoarded every penny he could keep from his family till he could buy a small printing press. Handing out leaflets on the street corner was going to overturn racist America. His whole life had less effect on racism than a couple of hit songs by Jimmy Hendrix or Bob Dylan.

          I couldn’t care less if a medication is designed by a solo inventor or a giant corporation. There will be testing protocols invoked…regardless of fear of language. In non-emergency context, they will be carried all the way through. The emergency you seem to think exists only in a controlled press is real enough to see, locally and regionally, and we have sufficient free press to check national and global trends. I live in a middle-class suburban community, a tad rural, about 100 families. The number of COVID deaths reflect published national numbers. Exactly what I would expect…even with avg family incomes/education slightly above median.

          I had years of experience working in logistics for one of the biggest teaching hospitals associated with a comparable medical school. Exactly the people you seem to fear. And the townies had their predictable tiny share of fearfilled who refused any treatment that wasn’t “magical and independent”. Meanwhile, the people I worked alongside took pride in bringing medication and treatments into use that extended lifespan and lifestyle for the whole populace. People could choose to use it or not. If it was critical to the safety of the whole…like diphtheria immunization, then the political struggle ensued and most often becomes required by law. That was settled in the US in my childhood years. Even then, we have communities who reject modern science…and I wouldn’t live that way for love or money.

          Sorry to sound irascible. Only 2 cups of coffee, so far.

  2. moss says:

    I think you’re wasting your time, Eid. Dude sounds like he doesn’t even accept train or plane schedules, prescriptions, you name it – there’s always an excuse.

  3. Mark says:

    Gentlemen. Are you familiar with the term gaslighting? I shall provide examples. Best get a third cup, Ed. 😉

    When I say that the response to covid has been to force feed a moral panic to the population to stage manage compliance, I am told that this criticism must mean that I reject ALL institutional wisdom. This is gaslighting.

    When I say that the covid ‘vaccine’ safety is questionable and that its application should be restricted to those who are most vulnerable to the virus, I am told that in doing so I am rejecting the utility of ALL vaccines. This is gaslighting.

    When Anthony Fauci says that criticising him is criticising all of science, he is gaslighting us.

    Gaslighting is most often used as a non-sequitur to avoid engaging the specifics of an assertion and broadly dismissing an argument out of hand. It is the method-du-jour for both government. press and the zealots on both ends of the political spectrum.

    I understand that the covid vaccine is some sort of untouchable moral imperative to many. Gaslighting all critics of it into being anti-vaxxers its more about culture war than clear thinking. It is an obfuscation of the issue in order to avoid the specifics of the argument.

    Back to what I actually wrote, I think that the comparison between the moral panic invoked over ganja and the moral panic invoked over covid is entirely valid, It is from the same playbook. If you would like to discuss why you think this is not the case, I would be happy to engage but no more gaslighting please. It is lazy thinking.

    • eideard says:

      WTF is “moral” panic? Honestly, I can’t recall ANY vaccine you approved of. You put half-quotes around vaccine while at a minimum 90% of COVID deaths here are unvaccinated. Often higher. Not surprising to conventional public health standards.

      What standards are there in Oz for testing, establishing priorities for vaccines? I doubt they’re very different from US or Europe. Of course, standards differ somewhat…even in what’s termed pandemic. I simply presume the body of work and general testing expertise is similar from industrial country to country. As much as we might share a class analysis of corporate politics controlling what science confronts, solutions offered the general public have to demonstrate measurable success to continue to be acceptable even to the most skeptical public. In general, here and Europe have general agreement between govt and private institutions on success rates. Still, small voices of dissent are always present. Spent portions of my life as one. Consistency, scientific proof establish who’s correct over time. Over enough time, the anti-vax crowd becomes as frail as any Xhristian crusade awaiting a 2nd coming.

      We have the worst example of that here with the Republican portion of our 2-party miasma relegating themselves to a much higher rate of hospitalization/death – because they make vaccine, masks, social distancing into political questions instead of typical hygienic procedures.

    • eideard says:

      HOWEVER, what I did learn, today, is … “The goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when the ball is held with both hands, held by trapping the ball between one hand and any surface (e.g., the ground, a goalpost, the goalkeeper’s body), or holding the ball in the outstretched open palm.” … and you aren’t allowed to kick it away.


      In decades of watching footie on the Telly – mostly from England – today’s match between Brighton & Hove Albion 1 – 1 Crystal Palace was the first time I can recall the referee called upon to enforce this rule. They had to go to VAR to be certain of the violation, as well.

  4. Mark says:

    Mr Eideard. I don’t believe I have ever discussed with you any other vaccine. For the record I believe vaccination is an important tool for combating life threatening pathogens. I use quotes around the covid ‘vaccine’ because it arguably isn’t even a vaccine. It does not prevent infection or transmission of covid. It DOES assist with mitigation of life threatening effects though. More a gene therapy than a vaccine.

    I don’t appreciate the continued attempt to dismiss my arguments by gaslighting me as anti-vax. I’m not interested in participating in bitter culture war hysteria. I have no dog in that fight.

    Crap. I think I need that extra coffee now.

    • eideard says:

      Go have a coffee. I really try to sound more paternal than confrontational. Just not good at it. As much as I should be able to comment on life from the podium of these many years, my silly brain still seems to think I’m a young aggressive dude living inside this creaky old bot.

      • Update says:

        “Two cannabinoids have opposing effects on SARS-CoV-2 in culture
        In early tests, CBD inhibits the virus, but THC blocks this effect”
        “…The authors themselves emphasize that without a carefully run clinical trial, we shouldn’t get too excited about these results. And they certainly advise against trying to self-treat with CBD, given the variable quality and dosage of a lot of the CBD products currently on the market. The risk of having THC cancel any effect also makes self-dosing risky.
        Still, the researchers deserve credit for going well beyond most of the studies that have involved testing drugs against SARS-CoV-2—they have a plausible mechanism of action, which is something lacking for most other candidates.”
        See also ScienceAdvances: “Cannabidiol inhibits SARS-CoV-2 replication through induction of the host ER stress and innate immune responses”

  5. Meanwhile says:

    With fewer than three months until all adult New Mexicans can legally buy cannabis, the state has raised the limit on the number of plants producers can grow.
    “We have been listening to producers, consumers and patients who are as committed as the Cannabis Control Division is to supporting a thriving cannabis-industry in New Mexico,” wrote Kristen Thomson, the director of the Cannabis Control Division, in a news release. “Doubling the plant count for licensed producers makes sense to ensure that everyone can maximize the benefits of a thriving cannabis industry.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.